R
ruben
Guest
By no means Bill, kindly post and bring this thread on track.
Thanks,
Ruben
Thanks,
Ruben
Being A Real Camera Collector (not just a GAS hospitalized folk)
- Thread starter ruben
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 26
- Views 3K
SergioGuerra
Well-known
Camera collecting is evil! 😡
Makes prices go high to those who need a camera to go out take pictures ...
That's just my point of view 😛
Makes prices go high to those who need a camera to go out take pictures ...
That's just my point of view 😛
Bob W
Member
Ruben,
When you start talking about how you like the curves of your camera you begin to sound like a collector to me. There are many different types of collectors. There are the ones who collect an item because they think it will go up in price and just set it in a case and are scared to touch it because they will get fingerprints on it and lower its value. There are also those that collect something because the beauty of it strikes a nerve with-in them and so they have to have one or more of that item. Some of these People also use these items for there intended purpose. A collection does not have to be large to be a collection and it does not have to sit on a shelve unused.
When you start talking about how you like the curves of your camera you begin to sound like a collector to me. There are many different types of collectors. There are the ones who collect an item because they think it will go up in price and just set it in a case and are scared to touch it because they will get fingerprints on it and lower its value. There are also those that collect something because the beauty of it strikes a nerve with-in them and so they have to have one or more of that item. Some of these People also use these items for there intended purpose. A collection does not have to be large to be a collection and it does not have to sit on a shelve unused.
R
ruben
Guest
Hi Vlad,
I have quoted this post as it engages me in something of great interest for many as well: investigation and research.
As users of FSU cameras we all have many unanswered questions. We have had an interesting speculative thread called "A Fantasy Speculation About Soviet Quality Control", representing our questions about why a camera or lens seems to work so good while the other produced the same month doesn't.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49539
I think that by investigation and research we could elucidate many "secrets". But what you are suggesting, within this field is what I may call perhaps "autopsy". And I find this quite thrilling.
But performing these autopsies on cameras requires the combination of different disciplines, such as mechanics, optics, metalurgy, and also some level of equipment for making comparations at fine grain.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
cosmonot
uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝʞ
I prefer to think of my tools (yes I have a fair amount of woodworking chisels/planes/saws/whatever) and my cameras as accumulations, not collections. Why? Because they can be used for their intended purpose, if I am so inclined, even if I hold a reverence for their "history."
Is someone that wants "one of every size" (be it chisels, or lenses, or cameras of different formats) a collector? Or is it only the ones that have to have every minute variation of a particular item?
If a "true collector" only acquires items that will never be used as their designers intended, just for the sake of having them, then let's try to make better comparisons. Someone that collects milk bottles will likely never fill each and every one with milk, leave them on the porch in the middle of the night, and drink from them every morning. Now either of those behaviors would strike me as being rather odd.
Is someone that wants "one of every size" (be it chisels, or lenses, or cameras of different formats) a collector? Or is it only the ones that have to have every minute variation of a particular item?
If a "true collector" only acquires items that will never be used as their designers intended, just for the sake of having them, then let's try to make better comparisons. Someone that collects milk bottles will likely never fill each and every one with milk, leave them on the porch in the middle of the night, and drink from them every morning. Now either of those behaviors would strike me as being rather odd.
USSRPhoto
Vladislav Kern
Bob,
I guess you can classify me as a user/collector then, since I do like to take my cameras for a spin... true, I do have some pieces that are either aircraft/tank/submarine cameras or non-working rare prototypes that only sit on the shelf to be admired, but in most cases if it's easy to use (I'm quite lazy) I do try to run a roll through it...
I do think camera collecting in an exception to the rule of general collecting since the items collected are functional.. I really don't know any collector who just puts their cameras on the shelf and forgets about them, everyone I know uses at least some of these cameras...
Regarding the statement by Sergio, I would probably say that we do not drive prices up for user market, since the most usable cameras are usually quite common and do not present interest to most collectors.. You will always have the abundance of Zenit E's, Kiev 4, etc... We as collectors do not usually hoard cameras, that is we do not buy 200 FED 3's, this would be the only factor when the prices would be driven up... we still have one or two of each camera, which is in relation to a single model line exactly how much you have.
Ruben: regarding soviet quality control - it's quite simple: by end of 1960s Soviet photographic industry reached a turning point, when the supply had significantly exceeded the demand which peaked at around 1970, after then the production was drastically cut and the market again demanded more cameras, which again restarted the "machine" at around 1980... but at that time, the cameras and lens quality started dipping because of the accelerated production and favorable simplified construction and design. The tendency of using the latest and greatest production equipment in Soviet photographic production almost disappeared, the industry started lagging behind the industrial levels of the rest of the world...
So really mostly at the end of 1970s is when the quality control became lax and the units produced started to differ in quality from one another.
The overwhelming factor in inferior quality of some of the lenses produced before that period of 1970-something would probably be their age... with lenses - the growth of fungus and the drying up of the lubricant would cause the quality to degrade, especially if people kept on using them in such unmaintained condition....
I guess you can classify me as a user/collector then, since I do like to take my cameras for a spin... true, I do have some pieces that are either aircraft/tank/submarine cameras or non-working rare prototypes that only sit on the shelf to be admired, but in most cases if it's easy to use (I'm quite lazy) I do try to run a roll through it...
I do think camera collecting in an exception to the rule of general collecting since the items collected are functional.. I really don't know any collector who just puts their cameras on the shelf and forgets about them, everyone I know uses at least some of these cameras...
Regarding the statement by Sergio, I would probably say that we do not drive prices up for user market, since the most usable cameras are usually quite common and do not present interest to most collectors.. You will always have the abundance of Zenit E's, Kiev 4, etc... We as collectors do not usually hoard cameras, that is we do not buy 200 FED 3's, this would be the only factor when the prices would be driven up... we still have one or two of each camera, which is in relation to a single model line exactly how much you have.
Ruben: regarding soviet quality control - it's quite simple: by end of 1960s Soviet photographic industry reached a turning point, when the supply had significantly exceeded the demand which peaked at around 1970, after then the production was drastically cut and the market again demanded more cameras, which again restarted the "machine" at around 1980... but at that time, the cameras and lens quality started dipping because of the accelerated production and favorable simplified construction and design. The tendency of using the latest and greatest production equipment in Soviet photographic production almost disappeared, the industry started lagging behind the industrial levels of the rest of the world...
So really mostly at the end of 1970s is when the quality control became lax and the units produced started to differ in quality from one another.
The overwhelming factor in inferior quality of some of the lenses produced before that period of 1970-something would probably be their age... with lenses - the growth of fungus and the drying up of the lubricant would cause the quality to degrade, especially if people kept on using them in such unmaintained condition....
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Yikes. Camera-collecting an absurd crime? I shall not expose my ideas on that didley of a pickle! :angel:
My 20-odd cameras (and 30-odd lenses) collect no dust, that's all. Whether this is viewed as the "opposite" of an "absurd", "punishable crime" is very much up to interpretation; not one I will implicitly and/or tacitly hurl into debate by mere pronouncement.
In other words, declaring oneself "not a <insert noun here>" doesn't mean "I think <previously inserted noun> are absurd/or punishable crime".
Was this the question?
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
